The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1887-11-24

WnOm was referred the bill entitled "a
Act to amend sections 913 and 922 Of tba
civil Code, relating to District Justices -
beg leave to report that they have CON
sldered said BILL and the law BEARING uDo,
the subject of the appointment and occp.
patton OF the District Justices, and have
agreed upon the following facts and REQ
concentrations
We find that prior to the Legislative COS
sion of 1882 these officers were appointed
by the respective Governors, by and with
the consent of majority of the Justices Of
the Supreme Court. This plan of appoint
ment was generally satisfactory in its re-
suits, and gave the country a class OF Dis
trict Magistrates of fair integrity and o..
pacity. But by chapter XVI of the SEES.
sion Laws of 1882 this power OF approval
was withdrawn from the Justices of the
Supreme Court, and the appointment of
Magistrates was vested absolutely in the
Governors of the different islands.
The evil effect of this change was soon
observable, and has ever since been mani
fest in the lower intelligence of such an
pointees, while their independence of any
supervisory tribunal, in all matters per-
tanning to their appointment, and in many
of the matters pertaining to their tenure
of office, has rendered them, in many in
stances, INSCRIPTIONS, offens We and posi-
lively dishonest in the exercise of their
magisterial functions. To such an extent
has this evil developed that tn system of
so-called justice, as admin. cred in our
inferior Courts, has become a national re-
proach.
Your committee therefore feel that a
change in the methods of these appoint
ments is imperative in the interest of an
honest and competent administration. 1t
is also manifest TO your committee that
such appointments should be approved by
the Supreme Court, whose information
and discretion in the premises may always
be trusted. But we think it unwise that
such appointments should be vested in the
Supreme Court alone, and deem it entirely
appropriate that the Cabinet should have
a voice in such appointments. In all other
constitutional monarchies as your COM
mittee believe-certainly in England and
her cOlonies-all judicial officers, including
the humblest Magistrate, are appointed di-
rectly by the Crown or its representatives
In no country, within the knowledge of
your committee, does the system prevail of
in any formal manner consulting the Su-
periOr Courts as to appointments to the
inferior bench.
A similar principle obtains with regard
to the Federal Courts of the United States.
There is, we believe, no American Court
having any voice in the selection or APP
proval of inferior judicial officers. But the
conditions obtaining in Hawaii suggests to
your committee the propriety of concedng
to the Supreme Court the power to veto
improper nominations to the District
Bench. But it should extend no farther
than this, as that tribunal should in no
case be placed in the position Of a dispenser
of official favors.
The appointment OF the District Magis-
trates, in the opinion of your committee.
should be placed in the hands of officers
who are directly responsible to the people
for the exercise of that power. The mem
bers of the Cabinet are such officers, and,
as the direct servants and representatives
of the peoples representatives, it seems
fitting that they should directly exercise
this appointing power, subject, however, to
the veto power of the Supreme Court. We
therefore recommend with the amend
ments hereinafter suggested, the adoption
of this general principle, as proposed in
section / of the bill.
By section 922 of the Civil Code, as
amended in 1882, the Governors are in
vested with the discretionary power to
provide that the compensation OF any Dis
trct Justice shall consist of the whole or any
stipulated portion of the costs of cases de-
cided in his Court. Your committee con-
slider this provision as being only vicious
in its tendencies, and that it would, if car
ried into effect, Gas we believe it has not
yet been) prove prejudicial alike to the
magisterial integrity and dignity, and to
the public welfare. We therefore recon-
mend that the feature mentioned be elimi-
mated from the law. as provided in section
2 of the bill.
Your committee have made, however,
some formal amendments in the bill, ex-
tending its title to describe the Act amend
ing the original sections of the Civil Code
to their present condition. Inasmuch as
there are now at least three of the judicial
of the Kingdom for each of which
more than one Justice is commissioned,
we have amended the first section of the
bill to read, "There shall be one or more
District Justices for each judicial district
of the Kingdom, etc. We have further
amended by the addition of repeating
clause. With these amendments we re-
the bill to pass. Respectfully
G.. w. ASHFORD.
ID. II. HITCHCOCK,
G. F..HoRNER,
j. U. KAwAINUI,
G.. BERTELMANN.
The report was laid on the table to be
considered with the bill.
PRINCESS LIKELIKE' FUNERAL EXPENSES.
Noble Dowsett presented the following